U.S. Patent No. 9,616,345: Systems and methods for crowd-sourced game strategy

Summary:
Playing EA’s Madden can be daunting because of the number of systems and strategies concurrently happening, especially for a person who does not understand American Football. The playcall selection menu can very be confusing to a novice who may not understand the differences between a running play and a passing play. To help the player, Madden will provide suggested playcalls based on the situation, but early incarnations of the suggestion system were all based on pre-programmed suggestions. The game had no way of learning a players habits or adjusting the suggestion based on the opponent. U.S. Patent No.9,616,345 addresses this problem by creating a system and method to collect game play strategy data from online matches and use the data to adjust suggestions accordingly. Now, Madden will provide you suggestions not only based off your previous calls but also what you did in your previous matches as well as how other players handled similar situations. The game will even show you the number of times you have called a play and your success rate. The patent also suggests that this data could be used to alter AI player strategy, but the primary focus of the patent is on playcall suggestions.

Abstract:
Various embodiments provide systems and methods that collect data regarding game strategy decisions by human players during video game, and utilize the collected data to either adjust or replace behaviors of computer players and/or suggest game strategies to human players during video game sessions. The game strategy decisions may be harvested from human-vs-human and human-vs-computer video game sessions. The data may be harvested from online-connected video game sessions, which may be hosted over an online video game network. Depending on the embodiment, the harvested data can include information regarding game strategies used by players during the video game sessions, the game contexts in which the game strategies were respectively used, and the results achieved by the respective use of the game strategies. Systems and methods described herein may facilitate a computer player having behavior that is (at least partially) “crowd-sourced” based on game strategies used by online-connected video game sessions.

Illustrative Claim:
1. A method comprising: as implemented by a processor configured with computer-executable instructions, receiving first data from a first client device, the first data regarding a first game strategy used, by a first game player, in a first game context of a first video game session between the first game player and at least a second game player, the first video game session executing within a video game, the first game strategy being a playcall; updating a game strategy dataset based on the first data, the first data at least including an identity of the first game strategy and an association between the first game context and the first game strategy, the game strategy dataset including a set of one or more previous playcalls used in a set of one or more previous game contexts; receiving gameplay data from a second client device during a second gameplay session, the gameplay data identifying a second game context of the second video game session, the second video game session being between a third player and a fourth player; identifying in the game strategy dataset a set of one or more relevant game strategies based, at least in part, on the second game context during the second video game session, wherein individual game strategies are playcalls available for use within the second video game session; and transmitting to the second client device second data regarding the set of one or more relevant game strategies, the second client device being configured to use the second data to identify at least one suggested game strategy of the set of one or more relevant game strategies for use in the second game context of the second video game session, and generate instructions to output the at least one suggested game strategy within a video game user interface during the second video game session.

The ‘561 patent applies to fantasy sports and covers a networked system that creates a video game sports team based on at least part of a fantasy team roster. The system includes a server so the game team based on the fantasy roster can be used in online gaming or updated as the fantasy roster is updated. The real life actions of players on the fantasy team roster impact the play of the video game team during console play.

Abstract:

A video gaming console and related network interfaces with a server computer hosting an online fantasy sports game. The video game machine acquires a fantasy team roster of the fantasy sport game over a network that includes the Internet and the video game console is programmed to create a video game team using at least a portion of the fantasy team roster. The video game team created is playable on the video game console.

Illustrative Claim:

1. A method performed by a computer server for updating a video game team roster in a sports video game played on a video game console, the computer server configured to communicate with a plurality of video game machines via a network connection that includes the Internet, the method performed by the computer server comprising the following acts:

hosting an online fantasy sports game on the computer server configured to communicate with the plurality of video game machines via the network connection that includes the Internet, the online fantasy sports game including:

a plurality of fantasy sports teams that are each operated by a fantasy team owner in a fantasy sports league;

each fantasy sports team having a fantasy team roster comprised of fantasy team members, wherein the fantasy team members are associated with real-life athletes of collegiate and/or professional sports teams and the fantasy team members of each fantasy team are selected by the fantasy team owner of each fantasy team through a fantasy draft; and

wherein the online fantasy sports game provides a score for each fantasy sports team in the fantasy sports league, the score being calculated using statistics from a real-life performance of the real-life athletes associated with the member of each fantasy sports team; and

transmitting a fantasy team roster associated with a particular fantasy team to the video game console, wherein the video game console is programmed to create a video game team including a plurality of video game characters corresponding to at least a portion of the members of the fantasy team roster to be played in the sports video game on the video game console, wherein the video game characters of the video game team are associated with the same real-life athletes that are associated with the fantasy team members of the fantasy team roster transmitted, wherein the fantasy team owner is not one of the real-life athletes engaging in the real-life sporting events who are associated with the fantasy team members.

The ‘561 patent applies to networked games, like fantasy sports. A storage medium, such as a computer server, contains and maintains the rules of the game and character parameters, and also allows players to download certain game settings or components. The data on the server ensures consistent play experiences across multiple players.

Abstract:

A video gaming console and related network interfaces with a server computer hosting an online fantasy sports game. The video game machine acquires a fantasy team roster of the fantasy sport game over a network that includes the Internet and the video game console is programmed to create a video game team using at least a portion of the fantasy team roster. The video game team created is playable on the video game console.

Illustrative Claim:

1. A method performed by a computer server for updating a video game team roster in a sports video game played on a video game console, the computer server configured to communicate with a plurality of video game machines via a network connection that includes the Internet, the method performed by the computer server comprising the following acts:

hosting an online fantasy sports game on the computer server configured to communicate with the plurality of video game machines via the network connection that includes the Internet, the online fantasy sports game including:

a plurality of fantasy sports teams that are each operated by a fantasy team owner in a fantasy sports league; each fantasy sports team having a fantasy team roster comprised of fantasy team members, wherein the fantasy team members are associated with real-life athletes of collegiate and/or professional sports teams and the fantasy team members of each fantasy team are selected by the fantasy team owner of each fantasy team through a fantasy draft; and wherein the online fantasy sports game provides a score for each fantasy sports team in the fantasy sports league, the score being calculated using statistics from a real-life performance of the real-life athletes associated with the member of each fantasy sports team; and transmitting a fantasy team roster associated with a particular fantasy team to the video game console, wherein the video game console is programmed to create a video game team including a plurality of video game characters corresponding to at least a portion of the members of the fantasy team roster to be played in the sports video game on the video game console, wherein the video game characters of the video game team are associated with the same real-life athletes that are associated with the fantasy team members of the fantasy team roster transmitted, wherein the fantasy team owner is not one of the real-life athletes engaging in the real-life sporting events who are associated with the fantasy team members.

Back in January we reported a new patent case filed by White Knuckle IP against Electronic Arts over updating sports video games based on real-life events during a season. The asserted patent was U.S. Pat. No. 8,529,350. That case was actually terminated and refiled as Utah District case no. 1-15-cv-00036 in February.

From our earlier report, the patent discusses how prior art games were fixed as of the day they were released. A real-life player’s outstanding performance or a major trade taking place during the season would not be reflected until the next version of the game was released. The system described in the ‘350 patent purports to solve this problem by downloading updates to game attributes that are based on real-life changes in players, teams, and venues.

EA filed an inter partes review (IPR) request yesterday with the USPTO to invalidate the patent (IPR2015-01595). EA argues that the ‘350 patent should be limited to updates applied to stadium or field parameters based on arguments made by the patentee during prosecution. Moreover, EA argues that their own earlier games teach all the features claimed in the ‘350 patent. EA points to the 2001 iteration of their popular FIFA soccer games and the 2000 version of their Madden football games as teaching the updating features claimed in the ‘350 patent. Of note is that one of the references cited by EA is a Madden 2000 Updates Website which included a “Playoff Week 1 Update” file.

At this time, the IPR has only been filed with the USPTO. The Patent Trials and Appeals Board (PTAB) will consider whether to institute the IPR based on EA’s arguments. If the PTAB institutes the IPR, EA and White Knuckle will fight it out at the USPTO rather than (or in addition to) the federal courthouse in Utah.

In re: NCAA Student-Athlete Name & Likeness Licensing Litigation
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Case Number: 4:09-cv-01967

On Thursday, June 21, 2013, a group of current and former NCAA athletes sought class action status from a California federal judge. They allege that the NCAA violated anti-trust laws (as well as their right of publicity) by using their names and likenesses in television broadcasts and videogames without providing any form of compensation. District Court Judge Claudia Wilken asked attorneys for the plaintiffs to, “disprove the NCAA’s arguments that the players” had different levels of ability and fame which would create a conflict within the class. Attorneys for the NCAA also alleged that class status could not be granted in regards to broadcasts because the broadcasts do not feature every athlete on a team’s roster.

Michael D. Hausfeld (of Hausfeld LLP) argued that the first argument was invalid because student athletes receive the same scholarships regardless of ability, and compensation from broadcasts could be distributed equally in the same manner. Hausfeld stated, “[d]istributing revenue from the conveyance of image and likeness, would correlate to that fairness principle by maintaining the equality of all the athletes.” Furthermore, it would not be difficult to establish which athletes appear in the broadcasts because in other industries there are those who keep track of appearances. Gregory Curtner (of Schiff Hardin), arguing on behalf of the NCAA, stated it would be an arduous task, and that, “[a]scertainability is a big issue and [the plaintiffs] have no solution for it.” Counsel for the players goes on to argue that the NCAA, by requiring players to participate as amateurs and prohibiting them from being compensated, for a, “horizontal agreement to not compete.”

The various lawsuits name the NCAA, game publisher EA Sports, and Collegiate Licensing Co. (a trademark licensing and marketing company). Trial is currently scheduled for February 2014. This case could be significant for EA because the NCAA players are seeking injunctive relief to prevent EA from continuing to make its NCAA series without providing compensation. In the event that this happens, EA will need to decide whether to continue making its NCAA franchise without using the likenesses of current players to market the game, or start paying a new license fee.

On Friday,
June 21, 2013, a one-week trial culminated in a jury finding that Robin
Antonick (the programmer for the original “Madden NFL” game released
in the late 1980s) was not barred from suing for millions in royalties by the
statute of limitations.

Back in
1988, Antonick was responsible for programming the first iteration of
Electronic Arts Madden NFL series for
the Apple II. Antonick alleges that EA
owes him royalties stemming from their Madden
NFL game released on the Sega Genesis.
The jury, specifically, found that Antonick did not become aware of EA’s
alleged breach until 2009 at EA’s 20th anniversary celebration of the
franchise. Whereas Antonick’s version of
the game took four years to make, multiple EA employees involved with the
franchise reminisced how the Sega version only took six months to make, even
though none of the lead developers had ever created a videogame before. Antonick alleges that he then began to
realize that there was no way the game could have been developed in that amount
of time without relying on the source code he wrote. Leonard Aragon, Antonick’s attorney, goes on
to allege that the Sega version of the game used a football field 80 yards
wide, whereas a typical field is 53 yards wide.
This is significant because, in Antonick’s original game, the field was
80 yards wide, and there is, “no reason to have it that size unless you
take it from the previous game; [because] if you put [Antonick’s] plays on a
53-yard field half the team would be off the field.” Electronic Arts alleges that Antonick could
have discovered this information back in 2004 when the publisher was celebrating
the franchise’s 15th anniversary.

Trial is
scheduled to being on July 1, 2013, to determine if, and to what extent, EA owes
royalties to Antonick. The verdict could
be substantial. Under the original contract, EA agreed to pay Antonick royalties
on any works that are either derivative of the original 1988 game or any other
works stemming from those derivative works.

This case was recently remanded to the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals after the Court of
Appeals held that the grant of summary judgment was in error and that further
proceedings were necessary. The case
arises from Plaintiff Ryan Hart (individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated) alleging that Electronics Arts (EA) NCAA Football series of games violated his right of publicity by
appropriating his likeness in NCAA
Football 2004, 2005,and 2006. Hart was a successful quarterback for Rutgers
University from 2002 through the 2005 season, taking his team to their first
Bowl game since 1978. The case was
originally dismissed after EA filed a motion for summary judgment; the district
court held that EA NCAA games were
protected under the First Amendment.

The Third Circuit, in determining that the District Court erred
conducted a balancing test when coming to its decision to decide whether
First Amendment rights superseded the right of publicity. In conducting this analysis, the court looked
to three tests: the predominant use test, the Rogers test, and the transformative use test. The predominant use test maintains that,
“If a product is being sold that predominantly exploits the commercial
value of an individual’s identity, that product should be held to violate the
right of publicity and not be protected by the First Amendment.” The court did not, however, that if the
predominant purpose is to comment on or about a celebrity (such as parody) more
weight would be given to the expressive values.
The court ultimately declined this test stating that at best is was very
subjective, but at worst is was arbitrary forcing judges to not only be,
“impartial jurists” but also, “discerning art
critics.” The court then turned to
the Rogers Test from Rogers v. Grimaldi. This test relies on a theory of trademark
law, specifically false endorsement, and it holds that the use of celebrity
likeness is acceptable as long as it is not simply, “a disguised
commercial advertisement for the sale of goods and services”. The court also rejected this test stating
that it would be unwise to determine that Hart was unable to retain his right
of publicity because his likeness was being used in the very same arena from
which it was derived. The court reasoned
that it made sense that any use of Hart’s likeness would be in a football
setting since that is where his celebrity came from. After rejecting the predominant use and Rogers test, the court adopted the
transformative use test. This test
requires that an artist adopting the likeness of another must contribute
something more than a “merely trivial” variation to be protected
under the First Amendment. However, the
threshold to meet this test is rather low, a work is transformative if it adds
“new expression”. That alone
is sufficient to fall within the boundaries of the transformative use
test. Ultimately, the Court of Appeals
decided that NCAA Football was not
sufficiently transformative to attain First Amendment protection because it
adds nothing creative to Hart’s likeness.
EA argued that all player avatars could be customized, therefore
satisfying the transformation requirement.
However, the court held that the main appeal of Hart’s likeness was
maintaining it as is so that fans could play as him. Furthermore, any customization was not a
transformation of Hart’s likeness allowing the use, but was instead a new
creative product that caused the use to cease to exist.

This case is still pending in the District Court of New Jersey after the
Third Circuit’s opinion was filed on May 21, 2013. If, after further proceedings, the District Court
determines that Hart’s right to publicity was affected, it could have a
substantial effect on EA NCAA
series. Because NCAA athletes cannot
receive compensation that in any way relates to their athleticism, it is
unlikely that players would sign away their likenesses to EA as there is little
benefit to be gained. This would make
the game series a potentially huge liability for the company, putting them in a
position that would require they either risk litigation or lose the
distinctiveness of the athletes that fans of the series purchase the game for.

We will continue to monitor this case and provide any relevant updates
as they become available.

Subscribe

Receive email alerts for new posts.

Name

Email*

GET THE APP ON IOS

Follow Us On

The Web’s Best IP Law Resources

Recognized By

DISCLAIMER

The information on this site is provided for informative and educational use only and should not be relied on as legal advice. No attorney-client relationship exists by virtue of you reading our blog. Always consult an attorney if you need specific legal guidance.